<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; Women&#8217;s Health</title>
	<atom:link href="http://medicalconsumers.org/tag/womens-health/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://medicalconsumers.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:23:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='medicalconsumers.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://medicalconsumers.org/osd.xml" title="" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://medicalconsumers.org/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>New Pap test guidelines</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cervical cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pap test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap test risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening guidelines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I doubt many women have had the pros and cons of the Pap test explained to them by their doctors.  Nor are we told how rare cervical cancer is.  We have been lead to believe that Pap testing is reason why cervical cancer is rare, but in fact the cervical cancer death rate was going down years before the Pap test was given to a significant portion of the femal population.  See my 2007 article on the topic.  And here’s the National Cancer Institute’s <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/HealthProfessional/page11">cautions about the Pap test</a> that have been on its Web site for several years. I think women deserve an apology from the ACS and ACOG<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3349&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Walk-in clinics good choice for minor ills</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/09/29/walk-in-clinics-good-choice-for-minor-ills/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/09/29/walk-in-clinics-good-choice-for-minor-ills/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chronic Conditions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bladder infection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ear infection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sore throat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[urinary tract infection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The prescription drug costs were the same at retail clinics, physician offices, and urgent care centers.  The exception was the ER where the average prescription costs were higher and the quality of care was significantly lower than in the other three settings. The overall cost of the visit to a walk-in retail clinic was $110, compared to $166 for physician offices, $156 for urgent care centers, and $570 for the ERs. <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3075&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/09/29/walk-in-clinics-good-choice-for-minor-ills/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Marketing of Osteoporosis</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/19/the-marketing-of-osteoporosis/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/19/the-marketing-of-osteoporosis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 19:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug ads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[osteoporosis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scans and X-rays]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fosamax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medconsumers.wordpress.com/?p=2210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How a risk factor (bone loss) became a disease (osteoporosis) by Maryann Napoli. Originally published in American Journal of Nursing, May 2009 Nurses probably get the same question I often get as a consumer advocate.  Should I be on this drug? You’re asked because you’re seen as the expert or simply a knowledgeable friend.  In fact, [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=2210&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/19/the-marketing-of-osteoporosis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Healthy Ovaries Should Not Be Removed</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/05/healthy-ovaries-should-not-be-removed/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/05/healthy-ovaries-should-not-be-removed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 19:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surgery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medconsumers.wordpress.com/?p=2107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new study shows that this longstanding practice causes two health improvements (fewer cases of ovarian and breast cancers), but more harms (an increased risk of death from all causes, fatal and non-fatal heart disease, and lung cancer).  In other words, the women who kept their ovaries lived longer.  <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=2107&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/05/05/healthy-ovaries-should-not-be-removed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Critical Evaluation of the Pap Test and Its Role in Reducing Cervical Cancer Deaths</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2007/03/01/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-pap-test-and-its-role-in-reducing-cervical-cancer-deaths/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2007/03/01/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-pap-test-and-its-role-in-reducing-cervical-cancer-deaths/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap test challenged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap test risks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medconsumers.wordpress.com/?p=2100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><strong>Widespread use of the Pap test has successfully reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality.</strong></em> This bit of medical wisdom has largely gone unchallenged with one noteworthy exception in 1978, when Anne-Marie Foltz and Jennifer L. Kelsey co-authored “The Annual Pap Test: A Dubious Policy Success” in the Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=2100&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2007/03/01/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-pap-test-and-its-role-in-reducing-cervical-cancer-deaths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
